Lucifer and the KJV
EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF ISAIAH 14:12
Who is Lucifer? Is he Satan? Is he a Babylonian king? Is the name Lucifer even found in Scripture? It is this particular series of questions that have helped to fuel the fires of one of the greatest debates in modern Christianity. Are modern translations of Scripture accurate? Or are they, as many “King James only” advocates say, merely perversions of the Holy Scriptures? While it would take volumes to answer the latter question regarding translational accuracy as a whole, it can be answered in brief whether Isaiah 14:12, and more specifically the term Lucifer, have been translated correctly in modern versions.
THE “KJV ONLY” VIEW
One of the primary publishers of “King James ONLY” material is Jack Chick Publications (better know as CHICK Publishing). One of the most popular works ever published by Chick on this topic was the now debunked New Age Versions by Gail Riplinger. Riplinger’s self proclaimed biblical scholar status has been repeatedly shown to be not just an exaggeration of her qualifications but also unabashedly deceptive. The fallout that followed the publishing of Riplinger’s book and the refutation of her claims, however, have not slowed Jack Chick’s adamant pushing of “King James ONLY” materials.
In fact one needs only to visit his website and run a search for articles on Isaiah 14:12 to find the often stated accusation that modern translations attempt to call Christ the devil. I recently visited Chick’s website; the following represents my findings. In the article I came across, written by David Daniel (author of the King James Bible Companion, also published by CHICK), he starts to make his case by attacking the so called cryptic nature of modern Bible translations. He writes:
“Throughout the world, if you ask people who “Heyleel” (hey-LEYL) is, most will not know what to answer. But if you ask them, “Who is Lucifer?” you will very likely get the correct answer. People know who Lucifer is. Ask the Luciferians, who worship Lucifer as a being of light. Ask the Satanists, who call their master Lucifer. No one is in doubt as to who Lucifer is….Any translation that says “day star” or “morning star” or “star of the morning” in Isaiah 14:12, like most modern perversions, is bringing confusion. And God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). Many people reading the modern perversions end up asking, “If Lucifer is the morning star and Jesus is the morning star, then is Lucifer Jesus?” The modern translations are simply not clear!”[1]
Rather than admitting or considering the possibility that the King James translators used the wrong term or mistranslated, Mr. Daniel immediately attacks the motives of modern versions. He then brings an emotional appeal to Scripture and the nature of God. He also makes a theological mistake of astronomical proportions. One of the first rules of discernment is to never, for any reason, go to the secular (or in this case pagan Luciferians) to interpret your own theology. Why does Mr. Daniel use satanic theology to prove his point that Lucifer is the devil? I pray that it was an oversight, but it would more apparently seem to be poor scholarship matched with bad theological presuppositions.
He takes his argumentation even further by stating that the term Lucifer is not just an acceptable way to translate the name given in the Isaiah passage, but it is the correct way to translate it. He writes:
“The term translated “Lucifer” does NOT at all mean “morning star” or “star of the morning.” That would be two totally different Hebrew words. The word means “light-bearer.” In Greek it’s “heosphoros,” “light-bearer.” In Latin it’s translated “Lucifer,” light-bearer. Whether you say “heylel,” “heosphoros” or “Lucifer,” the meaning is the same: “light-bearer.” But only Lucifer communicates who we are talking about in English.”[2]
The question now becomes, is Mr. Daniel correct in his assertions? Are the modern translations trying to push an anti-God agenda of confusion? Or are they correcting a more than 400 year old translation blunder? Is Lucifer the correct term? The only way to appropriately address these issues and concerns is to do a thorough exegesis of the passage in question, Isaiah 14:12.
THE CONTEXT OF ISAIAH 14:12
Before we can begin an exegesis of the passage in question, we must understand the context in which Isaiah was speaking. One of the basic premises of biblical hermeneutics is to understand that a particular passage must be read in context to truly grasp the intent behind the given verse. The section of scripture where this particular passage appears is often times called Isaiah’s “prophecies against the nations,” and is considered to entail Isaiah 13:1-23:18. The Liberty Bible Commentary says this regarding the greater context in which this passage is found:
“This section of Isaiah’s prophecy concerns the message of God’s judgment against Israel’s neighbors. Not only will God judge His people for their sins but He will also judge the pagan nations surrounding Israel…The message…deals with the nation of Babylon, which would eventually carry Judah into captivity. Nevertheless, the prophet Isaiah sees into the future to a time beyond the captivity when Babylon itself shall be taken captive.”[3]
Clearly, the grand context of the passage then is in relation to the future powerhouse nation of Babylon. We see that in chapter 13 Israel is told she will be taken captive. However, things change later in chapter 14. Isaiah 14:1-2 reads:
“For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the LORD for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.”[4]
The focus of the prophecy, then, is no longer Israel’s coming oppression, but rather the fall of the oppressor’s hold over her. In fact, if we look to the fourth verse we find the prophetic words spoken against Babylon becoming directed at an individual, the king of Babylon. Verse 4 reads: “That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! The golden city ceased!”[5] This introduces a section of statements regarding the king that helps set up the pivotal passage we will examine later. Verses 5-11 read:
“The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers. He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth. The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us. Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.”[6]
The obvious, immediate context of this passage, then, would be in relation to the king of Babylon. Now that this is established, let us begin to exegetically dissect Isaiah 14:12.
EXEGESIS OF ISAIAH 14:12
Prior to our exegesis, let us review what has been established thus far. First, this passage is part of a large section of prophecies against Israel’s geographic neighbors. Secondly, chapters 13 and 14 make up a prophecy against the superpower Babylon, which had not as of yet been realized. Finally, Isaiah chapter 14 sets up the prophecy of the fall of Babylon, and more specifically the fall of the king of Babylon. Now let us begin our exegetical study by first reading Isaiah 14:12. Isaiah 14:12 in the King James reads: “how art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”[7]
Edward Young introduces this passage in his commentary by writing: “The Babylonian king had boasted. Yet he, the morning star, the shining one who is son of the morning, has fallen to the ground.”[8] Clearly, Ed Young viewed this passage’s immediate context to be directly and immediately speaking of the king of Babylon. Dr. Norman Geisler agrees and states that: “This passage is a literal reference to the king of Babylon.”[9]
It should be noted that when the passage speaks of falling from heaven, it may not be literally speaking of the celestial. Instead, “to fall from heaven” is often times, in the ancient world, an expression used to denote a fall from a great political position. The Hebrew word used here for fallen is “naphal”. This is in the “qal” form. The idea then presented is that of falling violently, even to ones own death. It can also mean to fall prostrate before someone. This makes sense in light of the Babylonian king’s pride-filled heart. Not only is he falling, but he is falling violently, and being made prostrate. No ruler wants to be humbled to the point of falling before another ruler. This would definitely be a play on words regarding the position of the one falling. This possibly even points towards his fall before the ultimate ruler, Christ Jesus. Further, we must note that this verb is found in the perfect form, meaning that literally speaking, it has already been completed. This is very common in prophetic writing. The prophet (here being Isaiah) would see the future as if it had already happened, and knowing God’s sure word, would then declare it as if it had already occurred.
Moving on to the name that spurns as much, if not more controversy than any other name in scripture, it is time to pick apart the title Lucifer. As noted in Young, the proper name here is not Lucifer at all, but rather Helel ben Schachar.[10] Of this name, Helel, Young writes, “the form helel has been derived from a root, “to howl”…In light of the Ugaritic however, the root is best derived from hll, “to shine.”[11] In concurrence with Dr. Young’s assertions, Keil and Delitzsch write:
“הֵילֵל is here the morning star (from ha^lal, to shine, resolved from hillel, after the form מֵאֵן, Jer 13:10, סֵעֵף, Ps 119:113)…It derives its name in other ancient languages also from its striking brilliancy, and is here called ben-shachar (sun of the dawn), just as in the classical mythology it is called son of Eos, from the fact that it rises before the sun, and swims in the morning light as if that were the source of its birth.”[12]
Much debate has occurred in scholastic circles as to whether this terminology is a quotation of Canaanite poetry, allusion to Venus, or even if it was a reference to Ishtar. Young, however, commenting on the term “morning star,” believes “Isaiah may simply use the phrase to indicate the morning star. Of all the stars it would be the brightest, but that clear star, unique among the stars of heaven, would fall upon the carcasses.”[13] The next phrase, “how art thou cut down to the ground”, comes from the Hebrew word “gada`,” meaning to cut down or shave off. This is in the perfect tense, meaning that is has already taken place in the prophet’s mind. The idea of cutting down here is similar to the thought of bringing down a mighty tree. Like a mighty tree cut down, the king of Babylon would be cut off. Not only would the king be cut down like a tree, but his prideful heart, which thought of itself as being in a “star-like” position, will be cut so low that it will be literally sent to the earth (Hebrew: erets). Ed Young, commenting on the last phrase in the verse, “which didst weaken the nations,” writes: “His reign had been one that threw away and weakened the nations; now he himself is weakened and thrown away.”[14] Just as this king was the one weakening or disabling (Hebrew: chalash) the nations (Hebrew: gowy) so shall he be weakened and made to fall prostrate. It is my sincere belief that because this king set himself up against the Lord’s people and considered himself God’s rival, God then made him fall before him in a humiliating fashion.
THE REMAINING CONTEXT
The verses that follow Isaiah 14:12 further shed light on the nature of this “morning star.” Verses 13-14 read: “For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.”[15] Here we see the king declaring the arrogant intentions of his heart. He says not that he wants to ascend into heaven, but rather that he will! My question is if the prophet was speaking primarily of Satan, as Mr. Daniel contends, then why would he desire to ascend into heaven? If this is indeed the pre-fall devil speaking, then he would already be in heaven. Instead of seeing pre-fall Satan in the passage, as Dr. Young points out, we are actually seeing a contrast between the king’s will and God’s plan! Dr. Young writes: “What a contrast! But thou, we may paraphrase the thought, thou hadst intended a different end for thyself. Falling from heaven was not in thy plan…” [16]
Directly following these unbridled statements of pride, we find again another contrast, this time between the king’s intention and his actual fate. Verse 15 reads: “Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.”[17] Contrary to his plan of becoming greater than the God of heaven, he will instead find his final resting place in the pit of hell. Further compounding the point that the immediate subject of this passage is not directly Satan comes the description of the king found in verse 16, which reads: “They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms…”[18] I find it interesting that the king here is described as a man, while Satan is a spirit and more specifically a fallen angel. Some would say this term “man” does not mean literal man but rather masculine being. This, however, is less than accurate. The Hebrew term used here, “‘iysh” (pronounced eesh), literally relates the idea of a human male held in contrast to God. The remaining verses within the context of the fall of the king (v.17-21) serve to further illustrate this king’s demise despite his lofty intentions. However, these are not needed for discussion of the issue at hand.
THE ORIGIN OF LUCIFER
We have seen clearly then that the term translated as Lucifer in the King James is not being incorrectly translated in modern versions of the Bible. The question then becomes “where did the name Lucifer come from?” If it did not exist in the original Hebrew, at what point did it find its way into the Scripture? Dr. James White comments, “The term Lucifer…came into the biblical tradition through the translation of Jerome’s [Latin] Vulgate…”[19] Jerome used Lucifer in his Latin translation because Lucifer literally means “light-bearer”. While this term does relate the idea of the “morning star,” it is less than satisfactory laguage to be used in modern English translations. The simple fact of the matter is that Mr. Daniel is horribly mistaken in his ascertain that Lucifer is indeed the correct translation. Further, speaking to the correct translation of the Hebrew phrase “Helel ben Schachar”, Dr. White declares that “star of the morning or morning star are perfectly acceptable translations of the Hebrew word.”[20] With all the critical and scholarly information emphatically in favor of the modern versions’ translation of Isaiah 14:12, I believe we can have confidence in the following reading of this passage from the NASB: “How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!”[21]
DOES THIS APPLY TO SATAN?
As we have seen, the context, and the language usage does explicitly speak of a Babylonian king. But does it also implicitly speak of Satan? Tertullian, one of the early church fathers, was the first known commentator to interpret the Isaiah passage as being what Christ was referencing in Luke 10:18. Since that time, especially since Jerome’s translation, it has become tradition to interpret this passage as being directly about Satan.
While the passage is not directly about Satan we can certainly draw a parallel between the attitude of the king and that of Satan. Because this king is not specifically given an identity, it is quite possible that this is a prototype of a king that represents both Satan and a Babylonian leader(s). This passage is much like its parallel, Ezekiel 28:11-19. While not immediately about Satan, he is certainly implied. Because of this, we can view Satan as the power behind the Babylonian king in the Isaiah passage, as well as being the power behind the king of Tyre in Ezekiel 28. Therefore, Mr. Daniel is correct in his belief that this passage applies to Satan. However, he is incorrect to demand that it is the immediate contextual subject.
CONCLUSION
After reviewing all the evidence and materials pertinent to our discussion, we must conclude that, contrary to what Mr. Daniel would like us to believe, the modern versions have Isaiah 14:12 right, and it is the King James translation that is in error. As we have seen, Lucifer is not found in the original text. Rather, it is a Latin interpolation that has attached itself with tradition. Because of this, Mr. Daniel would have us to believe that we must maintain this tradition as opposed to pursuing textual accuracy. I find there to be irony in Mr. Daniel’s insistence upon tradition over accuracy, because this same man detests the Roman Catholic Church for her reliance upon tradition over Scripture, which is the very thing Mr. Daniel is demanding we do. When our forefathers began the Reformation they stood against the inaccurate and unbiblical traditions of the corporate church. Standing against tradition is in our protestant heritage. Because of this I believe we should not fear standing against this tradition for the sake of accuracy. In summary, I believe we can confidently read modern versions (I.E. NASB, NIV), translated by conservative scholars, without fear of a Luciferian conspiracy.
[1] David Daniel. “Bible Versions: Your Questions Answered” http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/lucifer.asp. Accessed October 15, 2006.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Jerry Falwell, Edward Hindson and Woodrow Kroll, Liberty Bible Commentary (Lynchburg: VA, Old Time Gospel Hour,1982), 1322-1323.
[4] The Holy Bible : King James Version. (Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA 1995)
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah: Volume 1(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company,1997),441-442.
[9] Norman Geisler & Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook of Bible Difficulties (Wheaton, IL.: Victor Books, 1992),267.
[10] Young, The Book of Isaiah: Volume 1, 440.
[11] Ibid. 440
[12] Keil & Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament Vol. 7: Isaiah (Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 2000, Findex.Com. All rights reserved)
[13] Young, The Book of Isaiah: Volume 1, 440.
[14] Young, The Book of Isaiah: Volume 1, 441.
[15] The Holy Bible, King James Version.
[16] Young, The Book of Isaiah: Volume 1, 440.
[17] The Holy Bible : King James Version.
[18] Ibid.
[19] James White, The King James Only Controversy (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1995), 138.
[20] Ibid.
[21] New American Standard Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 2001)
Recent Comments